Jump to content
IGNORED

JW shooting victim refused blood transfusion


lilwriter85

Recommended Posts

http://www.inquisitr.com/2097904/accuse ... ansfusion/

 

 

Quote
An accused killer seeks to escape murder charges, claiming that if his victim wasn’t a Jehovah’s Witness, he would have lived. Jehovah’s Witness beliefs include refusing certain medical interventions, including blood transfusions. In this case, the shooter claims that if his victim hadn’t refused a transfusion, he’d still be alive. Thus, he claims, his actions — shooting the man four times — wasn’t the reason the victim died. Instead, he maintains, the refusal of life-saving medical intervention killed the man.

 

The Fresno Bee reports that David Quevedo shot Omar Silva four times outside Silva’s home. Lying on the ground, Silve is said to have moaned, “Jehovah, Jehovah, I’m dying, I’m dying.� This all took place in 2013, when Quevedo went on a rampage after his favorite football team, the 49ers, lost to the Baltimore Ravens in the Super Bowl. (Frighteningly, this wasn’t the only violent attack by an angry 49ers fan after a game that year.)

 

Now, two years later, the case has made it to trial — and Quevedo’s attorney says it wasn’t murder, because if Omar Silva, a Jehovah’s Witness, had simply had a blood transfusion, his life could have been saved.

 

According to ABC 30, Omar Silva was not the intended target — Quevedo had fought with Omar’s brother, Arnold, previously, and after shouting about “Bond Street Bulldogs� — apparently a gang affiliation — Quevedo shouted that he would be back, and left. When he returned, Arnold Silva wasn’t present, and Omar, instead, came to the door.

 

Queveda opened fire, and, with Omar Silva’s 13-year-old daughter watching, four of eight bullets hit their mark: three in Silva’s chest, and one in his back.

 

Defense attorney Antonio Alvarez says three of the shots weren’t life-threatening, and he believes that the fourth would have been survivable, with appropriate interventions. The prosecution, however, maintains that one bullet hit a major vein, and a blood transfusion would not have saved Silva’s life.

 

Now, medical experts for both sides will be called to testify about whether Silva could have been expected to live if he had received medical intervention in the way of a blood transfusion — that is, if he had not been a Jehovah’s Witness, or if he had defied those particular beliefs and accepted the transfusion.

 

A jury will be left to decide, as the defense argues that it was not the bullets, but Silva’s faith as a Jehovah’s Witness, that killed him, whether to uphold the murder charge in light of these claims. Queveda is also charged with possession of a handgun as a felon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he hadn't been shot, he wouldn't have died either.

I don't think you can escape a murder charge by saying "but if ____ happened, then they would still be alive!" You can't prove it 100%. Silva could have still passed away from a number of other things--organ damage, shock, infection, etc.

I think the no blood transfusions is totally nuts, but I would convict this guy. Silva died as a direct result of being shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an episode of Homicide: Life on the Street where a young gang member couldn't understand why he was being charged with murder because the kid he shot wasn't his intended target.

Didn't fly there either. Pull the trigger and it doesn't really matter who you hit or why he died. You've still killed someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he hadn't been shot, he wouldn't have died either.

I don't think you can escape a murder charge by saying "but if ____ happened, then they would still be alive!" You can't prove it 100%. Silva could have still passed away from a number of other things--organ damage, shock, infection, etc.

I think the no blood transfusions is totally nuts, but I would convict this guy. Silva died as a direct result of being shot.

I would convict too. There have been similar cases before like the drunk driving case, in which the victim was JW and her family refused a blood transfusion. The drunk driver was found not guilty of murder, but he was convicted of manslaughter.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/19/local/me-55523

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what happens when you shoot someone but forget to check their religion first. Attempted murder becomes murder if you don't know your victim's religious beliefs. Next time, he'll ask first.

Convict him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an episode of Homicide: Life on the Street where a young gang member couldn't understand why he was being charged with murder because the kid he shot wasn't his intended target.

Didn't fly there either. Pull the trigger and it doesn't really matter who you hit or why he died. You've still killed someone.

That sounds like my cousin's boyfriend's argument. He thought the cop that he stabbed was someone else. Therefore he shouldn't Be judged for stabbing a cop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, no. When you commit and act that results in the death of another, with malice (whether direct or transferred), its murder. The "but for" argument fails because "but for" you shooting they would most certainly be alive.

I'm assuming this is california because its in "fresno" but who knows.

You take your victim like you find them. This is the "eggshell plaintiff" or "thin skull" rule. You dont get to second guess your victims.

Go to jail, go directly to jail... do not pass go... do not collect your bologna sandwich...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He...what the fuck did I just read?

So our genius here, Quevedo, was angry because his sports team lost, and his reaction was to go out and shoot a man four times - and then he argues, after the man, whom he shot four times died, that he shouldn't be charged with murder because the victim would have survived had he undergone a blood transfusion.

[Reads it again.]

Yes, that is what I did just read.

No, dumbass; Silva didn't die of being a Jehovah's Witness; he died because a crazed 49ers fan, Quevedo, shot him - shot him four times.

Whenever you hear of one person shooting another four times, it's safe to say the shooter wanted his target to die.

...because his football team lost?

I can understand some pretty terrible reasoning for doing things, but...that?

I don't envy hiss defense team. My guess is Quevedo is going to lose. Really, really lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. If you don't want to kill someone, you should not shoot them.

This is gun safety 101. You never point a gun at someone unless you plan to kill them. And if you shoot, you shoot to kill. Sure, maybe the person's life could have been saved with the right medical treatment, but that's a helluva crap shoot right there.

Interesting attempt at a get-out-of-jail-free card, but I would be extremely surprised if it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzzard, this indeed is Fresno, California. The Bulldog gang (gangs?) is all kinds of Fresno.

I just can't with people sometimes. Giving the rest of us Niner fans a bad name. Hey, you know what I did when the Niners lost the Super Bowl? I went the fuck home and avoided social media for 2 weeks because I didn't wanna hear about it. I didn't shoot anybody. Pendejo!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the no blood transfusions is totally nuts, but I would convict this guy. Silva died as a direct result of being shot.

I agree. The JW belief about not accepting blood transfusions makes absolutely no sense and I truly wish that the JWs would abandon that very poorly thought out belief for the sake of tragic cases like this guy. This guy could still be alive for his kids if not for the illogical and dishonest teaching of the JWs. Still, though, I don't think that their crazy belief gives this guy any excuse for murder. You should never aim a gun at someone unless your intention is to shoot to kill, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gangs make my blood boil. They ruin lives. They ruin childhoods.

In defending Quevedo, Alvarez said the defendant fired through a metal security door with a .22-caliber firearm. Three of the shots were not life threatening, he told the jury.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/05/15/452 ... gious.html

He fired eight shots total. Four hit the victim, but three of those were not life-threatening (allegedly). So, 7 out of 8 shots were not life-threatening. Why that matters is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he shot someone. The victim would be alive if he hadn't been shot. Of course he murdered someone, and should be charged as a murderer. There are many reasons why a person who was shot didn't die straight away, what if the guy had been shot out miles away from civilization and died of blood loss while trying to crawl away to find help? What if his wound got infected and that killed him? What if the ambulance arrived too late to save him?

If you shoot someone, and then they die as a direct result of being shot, then you have murdered someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert on California criminal law. As a matter of common sense, though, I'd think that it's obvious that shooting someone 3x in the chest is an act that you do when you intend to kill someone. If the victim was shot in the foot and died of blood loss or gangrene, I could possibly see a lesser charge - after all, the shooter could argue that he intended to wound, but not kill. With 3 shots to the chest, though, you are basically relying on doctors to do some miraculous intervention to prevent the natural consequences of your actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He...what the fuck did I just read?

So our genius here, Quevedo, was angry because his sports team lost, and his reaction was to go out and shoot a man four times - and then he argues, after the man, whom he shot four times died, that he shouldn't be charged with murder because the victim would have survived had he undergone a blood transfusion.

[Reads it again.]

Yes, that is what I did just read.

No, dumbass; Silva didn't die of being a Jehovah's Witness; he died because a crazed 49ers fan, Quevedo, shot him - shot him four times.

Whenever you hear of one person shooting another four times, it's safe to say the shooter wanted his target to die.

...because his football team lost?

I can understand some pretty terrible reasoning for doing things, but...that?

I don't envy hiss defense team. My guess is Quevedo is going to lose. Really, really lose.

But not only that. He left, had enough time to cool down over the fact that his team lost, yet came back and was still so pissed off, that he picked someone else entirely to shoot anyway, with a child right there. Eight frigging times. Who has that much uncontrolled rage over something so inconsequential? Jeez.

As to the issue at hand... as an avid fan of a completely different sport (but who has never killed anyone because of it, natch), my feelings are pretty cliched. Never assume the double play. Ain't no one gonna give you an extra out due to maybe, sorta, possibly having just missed that runner on the way to second. Too bad, schmuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slippery slope. So if someone infects me with something only penicillin will cure, and I refuse, since I am allergic to penicillin, they can't be charged with attempted murder? I call bullshit, and I call bullshit on this guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[attachment=0]Qyevedo.jpg[/attachment]

Sexy guy!

Nothing says "Unemployable" quite as facial tattoos - especially crappy ones or/and ones related to gang affiliation. (Yes, I know there are exceptions to every rule stereotype rule...stereo... thing of this nature but, maybe it's because this guy shot someone four times for no damned reason that I'm inclined to read those facial markings as some alternative spelling of "LOSER! AVOID ME BECAUSE I SUUUUUCK!")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing says "Unemployable" quite as facial tattoos - especially crappy ones or/and ones related to gang affiliation. (Yes, I know there are exceptions to every rule stereotype rule...stereo... thing of this nature but, maybe it's because this guy shot someone four times for no damned reason that I'm inclined to read those facial markings as some alternative spelling of "LOSER! AVOID ME BECAUSE I SUUUUUCK!")

I once had a defendant who tattooed "killer" on his face (after the murder). He was shocked when he was convicted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a defendant who tattooed "killer" on his face (after the murder). He was shocked when he was convicted...

:O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a strange defense.

Nobody has the right to a "perfect" victim.

Maybe somebody won't survive their injuries because they have a heart disease, are newborn, are old and frail, are obese or whatever (including religious in this case). If you put them at risk of dying from your gun shots you cannot blame it on them if they actually do. :cray-cray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a defendant who tattooed "killer" on his face (after the murder). He was shocked when he was convicted...

He was shocked by the conviction? Did he then tattoo "stupid" above the "killer" tattoo just to keep things honest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if there is a robbery and one of the robbers gets shot by say the victim or a cop they will be charged with murder. this is no different really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't with people sometimes. Giving the rest of us Niner fans a bad name. Hey, you know what I did when the Niners lost the Super Bowl? I went the fuck home and avoided social media for 2 weeks because I didn't wanna hear about it. I didn't shoot anybody. Pendejo!!

I just went home and stroked my Giant's World Series cap lovingly. I didn't shoot anybody either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.